Our View: "Gun-free zone" school label needs to end

Wednesday

Jan 30, 2013 at 9:50 AMJan 31, 2013 at 7:20 PM

Remove “gun-free zone” designations from schools. The label has given attackers the advantage for too long. The change is working in Utah and Texas and, if it can save one life, don't we have an obligation to try?

"If there's even one life that can be saved, then we've got an obligation to try," President Barack Obama said earlier this month, introducing 23 executive orders to hopefully reduce gun violence in response to the Newtown, Conn., school shooting.

The possibility of saving one life appeals to emotion. Sometimes it's used to justify $500 million plans that can't be justified any other way. Yet there is no question that shootings in supposedly "gun-free zones" are a nightmare. Most of the worst U.S. shooting massacres have occurred where concealed firearms were banned or severely restricted.

So let's follow the president's reasoning and present an alternative that's already saving lives in the U.S.

Remove "gun-free zone" designations from schools.

Ten years ago, Utah adopted a statewide concealed-carry policy for its K-12 schools. Since then it has had no accidental shootings, much less a deliberate shooting. A similar policy has been successfully used since 2008 in parts of Texas, and is being expanded. At least one district in Ohio, in Montpelier, will soon allow non-teaching staff to carry a concealed weapon. Numerous other states have legislation pending to join them.

Misconceptions often block serious discussion of how such programs work:

— No one is required to carry a weapon. Staff participants volunteer.

— Any volunteer must at least have the training and a license for a valid concealed pistol license (CPL). In Texas, they also must be approved by the school board. Additional training is also planned in Ohio.

— Approved staff members are never publicly identified.

— Weapons must be kept concealed and on the staff member's person at all times on days the volunteer chooses to possess a pistol.

Objections include safety. So far, however, Utah and Texas appear to have a perfect safety record. Compare that to armed school guards, like the former deputy in Lapeer who just weeks ago was cited for leaving his gun in a bathroom.

These actual cases also help to answer the often-raised imaginary case of a teacher being overpowered by students. (Connecticut's victims were kindergarteners.) In the real world, teachers with CPLs are not overpowered. It's time to retire this hypothetical argument.

Many argue that guns and schools cannot mix. Historically, though, many schools had rifle teams. New York had 80 districts with such teams in 1975, now down to about a quarter of that. Ironically, such teams have been endorsed by both the Brady Campaign To End Gun Violence and the National Rifle Association as a way of teaching gun safety.

Others debate whether a staff member could adequately defend students against a shooter. That certainly would depend on circumstances, but it seems an armed staffer would have better opportunities than an unarmed staffer.

The best reason, though, is taking away a would-be attacker's advantage of knowing that a school has no one who can shoot back. Attackers are certain of that today because most states, including Michigan, prohibit a CPL permitee to carry concealed on campuses. (Oddly, Michigan law does allow a person with a CPL to carry a gun in a school, provided the firearm is worn unconcealed.)

Legalizing concealed carry — even if no staff actually were armed — would alter the paradigm that now gives attackers the edge. On days when no staffers were armed, there would be none of the risks that critics list. On every day, though, an attacker would be forced to guess who might be armed. That doubt alone could deter some attacks and save some lives.

Sadly, school massacres are likely to go on, even as they still do in Germany and other countries that are relatively gun-free nations. Michigan should consider other states' successful step for defending students and staff. Increase the training requirements if needed. At the very least, remove "gun-free" laws. What's working in Utah and Texas is something we wish President Obama had addressed.

Not having a "gun-free school" label will make some people uncomfortable. But, in the words of President Obama, if it can save one life, don't we have an obligation to try?